Going into this year we all would have said that John Patterson and Chad Cordero would be the Nats' two best pitchers. Instead, they've been our worst. Cordero blew another save yesterday, and has now blown half of his save opportunities. (Skip down to the next paragraph if you've got a quesy stomach.) His ERA is not almost 5, which is horrific for a closer. The Chief has given up almost twice as many hits as strikeouts (22-13) and almost three times as many baserunners as strikeouts (32-13). He hasn't even been as good as a replacement pitcher; his VORP is -0.4. He has been, in a word, awful.Meanwhile, Patterson went on the DL yesterday with something called "right elbow biceps soreness." When exactly did the elbow become connected to the biceps? Anyway, Manny Acta is saying that Patterson will be out at least a month, and you have to wonder whether the best thing now is to sit him down for the rest of the season.
So, the two pitchers who could have commanded the most in trades are worthless on the market right now. But, the news is not all bad. Shawn Hill had another good game, giving up two runs in six innings. Hill has been the team's best pitcher this year, posting a VORP of 8.4. He's not great, but it would be good to come out of this season knowing that we have two reliable back-of-the-rotation pitchers in Hill and Jason Bergmann. It's not as much as we hoped for, but its something.
Just in case you're keeping score, the Nats now have the worst record in baseball--9-22. But don't focus on the negative--focus of the positive. The Nationals' expected record is 8-23, meaning that the team is performing one game better than its runs scored-runs allowed ratio would suggest. So, we're not bad, we're overachievers!
You probably know by now that Roger Clemens signed on to play for the Yankees this season for $18.5 million. From a baseball perspective, it's not clear what the Yankees will get for their money. Clemens has been superb recently; the last time he posted an ERA above 3 was in 2003. He is a first-ballot Hall of Famer and arguable the best pitcher the game has ever seen. But the only reason the Yankees are making this move is to improve their playoff position, and his ERA in his last two post-seasons was more than twice his regular season ERA. Of course, the Yankees might not make the playoffs without the Rocket, so they may be willing to live with decreased performance in October so long as they're still playing.Financially, though, this deal is yet more evidence that there is something seriously wrong with Major League Baseball. On a prorated basis, Clemens is now the highest paid player in baseball and will earn $4.5 million per month and $8,888 per pitch. A guy with a better financial mind than me has concluded that there is no way the Yankees can make money on this deal. You have to wonder about the sanity and competitive health of a sport in which owners are not engaging in profit-maximizing behavior. Baseball is definitely better off than it was ten years ago, but it still has a long, long way to go to be a properly functioning league.
4 comments:
Every have not has a reason why the haves are evil - baseball fans are no different. When it comes to Championships in the Bronx, the have nots typically argue that the Yankees should be scorned because they are the most profitable franchise in the history of professional sports and shamelessly leverage that largesse to keep their fans in the postseason. Am I now hearing correctly that they are to be scorned because they are not acting in a "profit-maximizing" way? Which is it: The Yankees are evil because they are effective predators in the business of the sport or the Yankees are evil because they care more about winning than they care about money? If the Yankees don't make the postseason or fail to win another Championship this year, the have nots then will say "You see, money [aka prior success, huge fan base, relentless drive, risk taking] has nothing to do with winning." Just pick your poison, Yankee haters and we will see you in October (oh, wait, you will have moved on to football by then).
Scorning the Yankees because they are profitable? Scorning the Yankees because they are not? Hating the Yankees for any reason? Priceless...
On another note, being a 'lurker' long enough to realize that the author does his homework, and the biceps comment was only added to induce more comments, I will indulge..... While the bicep muscle is not technically connected to the elbow, the tendon runs right over the top anterior side of the elbow - and thus could cause elbow pain. Follow the link for a nice image 1/2 way down:
http://education.yahoo.com/reference/gray/subjects/subject;_ylt=AgOn3SksBRA15lhCqyOYu8ptHokC?id=150
There are two aspects of what should be a team's profit maximizing behavior. We'll leave the administrative and marketing functions for another discussion and focus here on personnel decisions.
First, a team should make personnel decisions that have a reasonable probability of maximizing profit. If, as has been asserted, the Yankees cannot make a profit off the Roger Clemens deal, then neither they nor any other team should make that deal. On this aspect, we don't really care how much a team spends so long as its behavior is profit maximizing. Baseball teams are, after all, in the business to make money.
Second, if MLB is functioning properly, the Yankees will be better off if all of the teams and the league is engaging in profit maximizing behavior. That is because the Yankees are part of a network, and firms within the network are more valuable, assuming they are providing a service customers value, when the network is more valuable. Case in point: the NFL.
So, we have no problem generally with the Yankees engaging in profit maximizing behavior. Our problem is that the economics of the game are so skewed in favor of an individual team engaging in behavior that is NOT profit maximizing. That hurts the league, and it hurts the game.
priceless--Thanks for the information, which is much more precise and informative than our screed!
Post a Comment